[LINK] RFC: IIA Draft Code re Privatised Content Censorship

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 17/04/2008, at 7:55 AM, rene wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:58:31 +0800, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> A close reading of IIA codes such as this one suggests a policy of
>> damage limitation on the IIA's part.  Its members understandably do  
>> not
>> want to have to act as lawyers, judges and policemen (and we would  
>> not
>> want them to).  So the code goes as far as it needs to in order to
>> avoid direct government regulation (which Schedule 7 reserves to ACMA
>> the power to do), but no further.
>
> While I more or less agree with that, imo it should also be noted  
> that the
> IIA code itself is a direct result of government regulation/ 
> censorship.

Oh, absolutely.  Don't anyone think that the government's co- 
regulatory approach to Internet governance in Australia is for  
industry's benefit.  It serves the government's interests first and  
foremost by allowing them to co-opt the industry into supporting  
government policy and thereby securing greater compliance, reaping the  
benefits of the industry's expertise thus saving money, and creating a  
more adaptable instrument that can be put in place more quickly.

Also, I forgot to disclose in the last email that I chair the IIA Spam  
Taskforce that is/was responsible for drafting the Spam Code of  
Practice, so whilst I wasn't posting with that hat on, maybe  
appropriate salt needs to be taken with anything I say.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

Luxury Perth apartment for sale!
http://www.yourestate.com.au/sresult.php?property_id=8581